Discussion in 'Politicants' started by fl0at_, Jun 7, 2021.
Shut the [uck fay] up.
Find somebody else to play your semantical games.
We are living through one long skit that isn't particularly funny.
Hell, basic research suggests that states actually already actively repealed their ant-miscegenation laws 20+ years ago, even though doing so was completely unnecessary since Loving v. Virginia had already legalized interracial marriage.
Considering about 93% of abortions occur in the first trimester, there's not a whole lot controversy there.
He has to avoid addressing the argument because it is not refutable. There is no constitutional protection to interracial marriage under the current interpretation of the constitution of this court. He can't refute it, so he must avoid it.
In which states is it a right?
Alabama had a vote in 2000 where 40% of the people voted to keep those laws, about the same number you give for the abortion question.
I don't think it's likely to reverse Loving, but we do seem to be in a period in which the views of folks who want to restrict people's rights based on their own world views and don't give a damn about public opinions are on the ascendancy.
Okay, and I'm seeing roughly 930,000 abortions in 2020. Soooooo 64,400 abortions performed after first trimester.
That doesn't seem like a lot to you?
22 years ago. And that was the last state in the Union to repeal it. And it's [uck fay]ing Alabama.
I bet it's closer to 50/50 now
It means the elective number of abortions almost exclusively happen when people think they should. Of that 64,000, even, a significant number relate to medical issues and other non-elective factors. So, no, I don't think it's a lot.
You just asked if 64,000 was a lot and then, here, called 800,000 small.
You are an enigma.
No, not without knowing how many of those were for life-threatening complications, or unviable or miscarried fetuses.
Weird how it is easy for one to see that when it isn't about the emotion of tens of thousands of killer moms killing their babies based on decades of propaganda. Like people want to have an unpleasant to painful medical procedure just to stick it to the Man.
If I am the medical community, I officially change the terminology from aborting a pregnancy to removing a malignant post-natal mass for this issue. Or something.
A LOT of women are going to die if you cannot remove a dead fetus from the womb. This is insanity.
And until recently, I had no idea this fell under abortion. So to (previous) me, those 64,000 were all viable babies that the momma just didn't want any longer. I have been educated in the last few months on this, and am thankful for it.
I don't have a problem with the ruling from today. You want to kneel and pray at the 50 whatever. It wasn't school lead and didn't require anyone to join in so I don't have a problem with it.
Ironically if it was a Muslim with the lawsuit it would have probably failed 5-4 with Robert's being the only one not flipping his stance.
Yes. As IP pointed out previously, our maternal death rates are going to grow significantly. And they're already abysmal compared to other first world countries. The US will move solidly into third world territory.
Do you have any numbers or data to back that up? And how do you define "Medical Issues? Is Down Syndrome a medical issue?
Separate names with a comma.